Writ petitions cannot proceed when alternative statutory remedies exist; here, the freezing of salary was upheld based on an arbitral tribunal's order.

ORDER :

1. The above Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent in freezing the petitioner's salary from May, 2024 onwards, in pursuance of order passed by the arbitral tribunal in ARB/PCHFL/PL/26/2024/97 dated 03.05.2024, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

2.......

a) The petitioner, a Government Teacher, filed the above writ petition. In the affidavit, it was averred that the petitioner has been working as a Teacher, PMSRHI ZPP Girls High School, Ganapavaram, since 2009. The monthly salary of the petitioner Rs.83,103/- is credited to her bank account No.30933722886 of State Bank of India, Gandhinagar Branch, Vijayawada. The petitioner obtained a personal loan of Rs.19.5 lakhs in December 2022, and an amount of Rs.38,530/- is being deducted as EMI. The remaining amount of Rs.44,573/- has been freezed by the respondent from May, 2024 onwards without jurisdiction and notice. When the petitioner approached the respondent under Right to Information Act, the respondent replied that it received order from TIS HAZARI COURTS Delhi to mark hold of petitioner‟s account under section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner is not aware of the freezing of her account till receiving a reply under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner had taken another loan of Rs.5,90,000/- from Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited vide loan Account No.PLSA00046F2E on 12.05.2023 and an amount of Rs.14,033/- is being paid as EMI for five months and later, the amount could not be paid due to financial crisis.

b) Due to freezing of salary, the petitioner is unable to draw any amount from her savings account lying with the respondent-bank and it amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner‟s request to de-freeze the account, did not yield any result. Since no notice was issued, freezing of account violative of principles of natural justice.

3. Heard Sri K.K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.A.Padma Vanditha, learned counsel representing Sri Sreedhar Valiveti, learned counsel for respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments in the writ affidavit, would contend that before freezing of petitioner‟s account, neither a notice issued nor enquiry was conducted. He would also submit that the salary of the petitioner is her asset and hence, freezing the account without following due process is violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the financial institution is not made as party respondent to the writ petition. The petitioner did not make any application to set aside the order passed by the arbitral tribunal in ARB/PCHFL/PL/26/2024/97 dated 03.05.2024. The respondent must obey the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The writ petition itself is not maintainable and the petitioner without availing the effective remedy under the Act, filed the writ petition.

6. Now, the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the freezing of bank account of the petitioner by the respondent-bank, in pursuance of the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in ARB/PCHFL/PL/26/2024/97 dated 03.05.2024, violates the principles of natural justice and the petitioner’s rights under Part-III of the Constitution of India?

2) Whether the writ petition is maintainable without arraying the financial institution as party respondent to the writ petition?

7. Since the facts narrated supra, manifes